TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (3) TMI 837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said to have dashed a lorry against a Tata Safari Car in which deceased Ramesh and others were travelling and in that accident Ramesh and two others were killed. According to the prosecution, deceased Ramesh who was formerly an employee of accused Nos. 6 and 7 had dissociated from them and had started a rival business thrivingly to the envy of accused Nos. 6 and 7 who planned the "operation road accident". 2. There are altogether 13 accused persons in the case. Accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 were arrested during the latter half of 2005. The petitioner surrendered before the investigating officer on 17-11-2006 and on production before the Magistrate, after interrogation by the police was remanded to judicial custody where he continues. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Guna @ Gunasekharan v. The State - 1997 Crl. L.J. 626 (Madras) and Velinedipurnam v. State - 1994 Crl. L.J. 2579 (Andhra Pradesh). Right to compulsive bail does not survive after the filing of chellan (State of M.P. v. Rustam - 1995 (3) SCC 221). The reasons stated by the Magistrate for returning the supplimentary final report as defective are not correct. When the original charge-sheet itself was filed on 25-10-2005 against the petitioner as well (although shown as absconding) within 90 days, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the proviso to Sec. 167 (2) Cr. P.C. for the reason that the supplemental charge-sheet was not filed within 90 days of the detention of the petitioner. 4. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the above sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner to judicial custody with effect from 17-11-2006 onwards his continued detention was insisted for the reason that further evidence was required to be collected. 5. When the earlier investigation conducted and the report filed were behind the back of the petitioner who had not been arrested, the period of 90 days under the proviso to Sec. 167 (2) Cr. P.C. had not started running. It is only from 17-11-2006 that the investigation involving the petitioner was conducted. It is true that a supplemental charge-sheet after the conclusion of further investigation was filed on 23-12-2006. But it was admittedly returned as defective and has not been re-presented so far. In the letter dated 9-2-2007 from the J.F.C.M.-I, Alappuzha addressed to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h was commenced after the petitioner surrendered before the investigating officer on 17-11-2006 has not resulted in a supplementary final report so far. Hence, I am inclined to give the petitioner the benefit of the proviso to Sec. 167 (2) Cr. P.C. Even otherwise, I do not think that the continuance of the pre-trial incarceration of the petitioner is warranted. The apprehensions of the prosecution can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions. The petitioner is accordingly directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the J.F.C.M.-I, Alappuzha and subject to the following conditions:- 1. The pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... வெறà¯à®³à¯€à®®à¯ˆà®•à¯à®•à¯à®œà¯‚லை மேவனிகேளà¯à®•à¯ˆ கூடவனை மறà¯à®µà¯à®¸à¯à®©à¯ˆà®®à¯ றனை வெஜிவீ வனிகம௠விவ வெலà¯). மற௠வெறà¯à®¸à¯à®©à¯‡,ஊளை""" Document 2 "வனில௠மாற௠கà¯à®¸à¯à®µà®²à¯ˆà®®à®´à¯ˆ வெயà¯à®©à¯ லேவெ னிà....